Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Take out your mental editing pens, ladies and gentlemen, because you are going to have to start cutting your speeches in a big way. We have heard two very lengthy opening statements and a number of lengthy interventions. There are some 30 Members still wishing to take part and the wind-up speeches will start at 5.30 pm. I am going to call the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, upon both of whom I would urge brevity, after which I shall impose a six-minute time limit on speeches, which may drop further under Mr Evans later on. I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having endured the last 40 minutes, I am bound to say, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, that although I will be relatively brief there are important matters that need to be discussed. I will raise them and give the House the opportunity to reflect on what I have to say.

This Bill was passed by this House without amendment. There were no amendments on Second Reading or in the Public Bill Committee. I have been Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for many years, and I have been on this Committee since 1985. I draw the attention of the House to the European Scrutiny Committee report tagged to this debate, published on 21 July last year. As the Minister said, EU retained law was never intended to remain part of our domestic statute book. I am deeply grateful to the Government for today’s round robin letter to all Members and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for his work on the genesis of this Bill.

We left the European Union with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 guaranteeing UK sovereignty and democracy, and therefore UK democracy itself. It was the culmination of a process that began with my sovereignty amendment to the Single European Act in 1986, which, at that time, I was not even allowed to debate. In turn, that was followed by the Maastricht treaty and a whole series of treaties, enactments and debates on the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties.

Incidentally, on the question of maternity pay—the only interesting thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—the UK actually has 52 weeks of maternity pay, while the EU has merely eight. On holiday pay, we have six weeks; the EU has four.

The views of the British people, as expressed ultimately in the 2016 referendum, repudiated the idea of our remaining in the EU by democratic vote, and the general election that endorsed that decision, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as Prime Minister, gave the present Conservative Government a large majority. The democracy that we enjoy is based on our unique and universally envied constitutional arrangements, whereby laws are passed in this House by a simple majority of MPs representing individual constituencies, who derive their authority exclusively from those who voted them into the House of Commons.

[Sir John Hayes]

This is the essence of the misunder-standing of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The relationship between the Executive and the legislature is such that the Government receive a mandate from the people, but Ministers are answerable to this House. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that constitutional fundamental.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I am grateful for that intervention, because nothing could have been more obvious than the fact that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and indeed many Opposition Members, simply do not have a clue about how the operations of the European Union function. I will deal with them in a minute, as the hon. Gentleman will find out—I would be interested if he would like to intervene and repudiate what I am about to say.

The Lords themselves—unelected, of course—are subject to the Parliament Acts, which may well prove necessary in relation to this Bill. This is therefore an issue of democracy.

I have watched and participated in the evolution of change in relation to European matters both in this House and outside, in referendum campaigns and the like, for the best part of 38 years. It is essential for those who are not so well acquainted with the manner in which EU law is made, which became more objectionable as the competencies in each of the treaties expanded, to appreciate just how undemocratic and unaccountable the EU system unequivocally is. I have to say that my own party is responsible for many of the problems that were created, but I am delighted to say that the democratic decisions of the British people have now demonstrated the need for this Bill, along with the fact that we have left the European Union.

The democratic deficit is one of the most important reasons—if not the most important reason—why we had to leave and why the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill are in need of immediate resolution. That Bill, which has passed all its stages in this House, is now becalmed like the Mary Celeste in the House of Lords, with nobody on board, pending agreement from the European Union to change its mandate and resolve this outrageous democratic deficit immediately.

As Con O’Neill, who negotiated our entry into the European Union, admitted in his 1983 report to Lord Hume—by then, far too late—the Government simply did not understand the undemocratic system that was and remains employed by the European Union. Many people, as is quite obvious from what we have heard in the past 40 minutes, do not have the foggiest idea what that means in practice and the way in which the European Union actually functions.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No. In a nutshell, every single law that goes to the Council of Ministers, which is the ultimate law-making body, does so by a majority vote of the 27 member stated behind closed doors, without even so much as a transcript and in total secrecy. Indeed, I had an exchange with the noble Lord Clarke of Nottingham on this matter when he was still in this House in 2017. He made it abundantly clear in his response to an intervention that the real legislative power of the Council of Ministers was exercised in private, going on to say,

“I used to find that the best business at the European Council was usually done over lunch”,—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 215.]

which is fundamentally different from the way in which we have legislated since we left the EU and in this actual debate today. By contrast, we are conducting business today, and taking democratic decisions, by a majority of this House, which is proof in itself that it works.

In practice, in the context of the sunset arrangements in this Bill, clauses 12 to 16 provide delegated powers to restate, revoke and/or replace and update certain retained EU laws, which are secondary retained EU law and a new category of “secondary assimilated law”. Many of these powers are subject to the negative procedure, but the affirmative procedure is required where primary legislation is being amended or substantive policy change implemented. Some primary legislation is in the Bill. Where the negative procedure applies, the scrutiny system is similar to the work done by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, and it will be for the House to decide how that evolves in line with the democratic decision taken by this House today.

When the original proposals for the first withdrawal agreement Act were brought into effect, at my suggestion—I introduced a Bill on the subject—all EU law was then deemed to be UK law. But then remainers got to work and came up with the concept of retained EU law, which asserted the supremacy of the principles of EU law and decisions by the European Court. We may have left the EU, but a massive ball and chain was embedded in that Act preventing us from making our own sovereign laws on our own terms. I add, by way of parenthesis, that the Prime Minister responsible for that Act resigned—thanks to the Spartans.

Those laws had been made under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. It is certainly true to say that since that date, not one single European law was ever repudiated by this House, because the provisions of that 1972 Act prevented it. We were therefore subjugated to the European Union and decisions of the European Court of Justice by our own irresponsible, voluntary abdication of the inherent and democratic procedures that evolved in this House over the best part of 400 years.

Our entry into the EU in 1972 was therefore a blind step into the void of an undemocratic and unaccountable system of government. These thousands of laws lack inherent democratic legitimacy, and must therefore be removed from and/or replaced on our statute book. The Bill also allows us to move back to the certainty implicit in the UK common-law way of doing things, as compared with the purposive interpretation of law by our judges, as laid down by the principles of EU law. Nobody can dispute that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I have already exercised that judgment. If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was out of order, I would have ruled him out of order.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So much for that.

Our system has relied uniquely on a large bench of high-quality, independent judges, who address points that are brought before them when people or businesses apply to the courts for remedies for perceived damage or misconduct. Through our traditional decision-making process, which must be interpreted in accordance with what is precisely set out in our sovereign Parliament, the judges must develop what is generally regarded as a fair and equitable system of redress, and set standards of care and determine consequences of breach in matters of responsibility and duty.

We therefore have to strip away vast amounts of inherited EU law, which operates on the constitutional code-based model that is alien to our system, so that we once again have a single common law system in our country—provided, of course, that we have the right people doing it, such as the Brexit opportunities unit, and that the task can be performed smoothly. In addition, economic research shows that this step will considerably enhance the UK growth rate, not by lowering standards but by removing or replacing voluminous, poorly drafted, generalised, purposive EU texts.

If we miss this opportunity, we will have shirked the core and inevitable consequence of the democratic decision that was taken by the people of this country. We must make our own sovereign democratic laws on our own terms, although on occasion, we may well decide to complement laws made in the US, parts of the EU or parts of the Commonwealth. Exchange across different constitutional arrangements sometimes leads to improved ways of doing things and improved laws, which is a good thing.

Ultimately, however, the simple test is what this House decides as the democratic law-making system under which we are governed; what the judges determine in the best tradition of our constitutional arrangements, which have been built up over many centuries; and how they interpret those laws in line with what our sovereign Parliament has decided. The work of the Brexit opportunities unit and of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, to whom I pay tribute, as well as the work of my Committee, is absolutely enormous.

The principle of the Bill was agreed on Second Reading and, as I said, in the Public Bill Committee. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for listening to the strong advice that I and others have offered. The Bill not only is justified democratically but, as enacted, will continue to be so. The freedoms that it will provide, in creating new opportunities for legislation, competitiveness and innovation, are self-explanatory.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I jib very strongly at the suggestion of avoiding the procedures whereby these laws were made. It is not just a question of their origin, because it is the EU and some people do not like it very much. It is rather because of the manner in which the procedures operate.

[Alyn Smith]

That is a point on which we flatly disagree. These legislative instruments were for over 40 or 50 years accepted by the UK Government in this House and latterly in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and others. They were also incorporated by the hon. Gentleman’s Government into domestic law in order to provide ongoing continuity in legal sentencing. So where there are pieces of legislation that are not fit for purpose—or are somehow holding the country back from this brave new world we are all excited about—then get rid of them, but do not say that vast swathes of legislative instruments on our statute book should just somehow stop without any thought about their replacement or anything else; that is not a sensible way to go.

These are significant points. I accept there has been some hyperbole in describing what is at risk, but what is at risk is fundamental to how the citizens of our countries lead their lives: labour rights; rights to clean air and water; product safety; consumer protection; food quality; protection for women in the workplace; protection of biodiversity; trading standards; and health and safety. I could go on—there is a lot more, and colleagues will come on to that—but there are deeply held principles that our party cherished which under this Bill will be subject to a reversal process which we reject.

Turning to what we are looking to do and focus upon, we will support amendment 36 and also the Labour amendments on workers’ rights and other matters; we need a united front on this. Our focus, however, given that we are the SNP, is Scotland’s democracy. The Minister made a number of points about the increased power for the Scottish Parliament, and there are some powers, but if we are being fully intellectually robust about that process we also need to look at the interaction with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the fact that just yesterday a section 35 order was made by this Government. That is implicit in the devolution settlement; that makes clear that the reality of devolution is that anything done by the Scotland Parliament can be called in by the UK Ministers. I do not like that, but it is the reality of devolution, but the UK Internal Market Act makes clear that any future law of any Scottish emanation of government could be subject to calling in on political grounds in order to maintain the coherence of the UK internal market. That means every single power of the Scottish Parliament and every local authority, health service, university and all the rest is subject to a gainsaying that upends the fundamental principle of devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I enjoyed working with the hon. Lady on the Online Safety Bill, which made huge progress yesterday and is now going to the Lords. The key point here is that there are many laws—and many pieces of what I would consider to be red tape—on the statute book, some of which even those who wanted us to stay in the EU do not know exist. We need to go through a process to identify that. The Bill is about amending, repealing or replacing that legislation. One part of that is about ensuring that case law that currently refers to pieces of EU case law and others refers to UK pieces. There is legislation that will become rapidly out of date because it refers to old EU legislation, priorities and policies. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose and up to date.

[Sir William Cash]

On a small point that was just raised, may I mention that the Online Safety Bill is not retained EU law? There is a law in the European Union, but our Bill does not relate to that.

[Dean Russell]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

I am conscious of time. The bit that I really want to touch on is this legislation’s role with regard to growth and small businesses. In the different world that we live in nowadays, it is essential that our small businesses—I believe that they are about 99% of all our businesses—can be nimble. We used to talk about having a shop on every corner, and we now have businesses that can be in every corner of the world. We need to ensure that they can grow and that they are not burdened with spending most of their time doing admin and back-office stuff to fulfil legislation that is out of date and unnecessary. We need to know what that legislation is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We are elected to govern. Of course, it will take some work, but the outcome is that we can take the decisions here. Whether we choose to take those decisions, are anxious about taking decisions, or do not even want to know what these EU laws are—that is just a very ignorant way to be—we need to be aware so that we can take those decisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about 2023 being a cliff edge. That is the time by which we wish to sunset, but there is an extension to 2026 for the bits of EU law for which Departments need more time to consult. The process has already been around for 18 months, and it has been and will continue to be considered. Department officials will continue to work together on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke about her constituents’ concerns and anxieties about the Labour party doing everything it can to take us back into the EU. There has been a lot of fearmongering from the Labour party in the amendments that it has tabled, but in this instance, I would argue that maybe her constituents should be afraid, as I am told that the Labour leader has attempted to block Brexit at least 48 times.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend, in the light of what she has just said, recall “Project Fear”, with George Osborne and others saying, for example, how many hundreds of thousands of unemployed we would have, how the financial markets would dissolve, how the City of London would become a ghost town, and all that sort of nonsense? Does she remember all that, and where are we now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

After 38 years in this House, I simply say a profound thank you to the British electorate—the 17 million who voted to leave the European Union in the referendum and endorsed that in the general election of 2019. I congratulate the Government, the Ministers and all the people in this House who have supported the idea of leaving the European Union. Above all else, I thank the British electorate.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I add my personal best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) following his resignation from his post. I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), for his excellent opening speech that he delivered at such short notice, and for his dexterity in answering questions.

Over the past 45 years, before we left the European Union, we were governed by and subjugated to European laws that were made behind closed doors by majority vote and without any transcript, such as we have here every day in our own Hansard in our own Parliament. Manifestly, that was not democratic and it was rejected in a referendum of all the people in this country and in the general election of 2019. Nobody can now justify returning to that undemocratic system of Government and the EU system of law making. It does not work, as we can see from the political resistance and national democratic changes that are taking place now throughout the European community, such as in France, Italy and Poland and throughout the whole continent. President Macron’s bid to create European sovereignty in his recent elections has paralysed his Government.

The sovereignty of our democracy and of the United Kingdom is guaranteed by section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. This sovereignty is not theoretical or constitutional; it is our democracy and is in line with the referendum result of 2016, which was endorsed by the results of the general election of 2019. We were elected on a manifesto, which I am glad the Prime Minister emphatically endorsed this morning as being, as he put it, at the “heart” of our mandate, including embracing “the opportunities of Brexit”, encouraging competitiveness, investment, productivity and some deregulation and innovation, such as our world- beating roll-out of vaccines, including the AstraZeneca vaccine, which, by the way, the EU tried to stop altogether.

We now have the opportunity to deliver those commitments and to stabilise this country against the background of the £400 billion spent on covid, and the increases in inflation, interest rates and the cost of living brought about by President Putin’s energy deal with Germany, which I predicted would create geopolitical and European instability in an article in 2001, which was commended by The Times. Covid and Ukraine were external factors; they were not caused by this Government, and they are at the root of our current problems.

Most other countries in Europe are experiencing a worse cost of living crisis and economic downturn. Our unemployment rate, for example, is running at only 3.5% and our job vacancies, according to the latest figures, stand at approximately 1.2 million. There are those who claim that we need legal certainty—I have heard that argument—but what is certain is that it would be untenable and hopelessly uncertain to have two statute books and two systems of interpretation.

As the Government have said, retained EU law was never intended to remain on the statute book indefinitely, but was preserved as a temporary bridging measure following Britain’s exit from the European Union. This Bill is an essential component in resolving that. It gives us the opportunity to remove unnecessary laws that restrict our competitiveness and growth and enables us to realise our potential as a sovereign independent nation, making our own laws through our own Members of Parliament, from all parts of the House, who were elected by the voters of this country in the general election. This is the fundamental issue that we have to address. This EU-derived law did not have UK levels of parliamentary scrutiny, as our traditional domestic, sovereign legislation demands, and was made subject to goings-on in Brussels behind closed doors. It is right that we should have full control over our domestic legislation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset mentioned the ports directive, and I remember it terribly well. It was opposed by every single person in this House who had representative objections put to them by people from the trade unions, from the Government and from the ports employers. Every single sector involved in the ports legislation refused to accept it, but it made no difference; it went through anyway. Indeed, I can honestly say that, since 1972, and certainly 1984, since I have been in the House, not a single piece of European legislation passed under the auspices and direction of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 has ever been rejected by this House. This is an opportunity to put right that democratic absurdity. The simple fact is that retained EU law currently on the statute book lacks the legitimacy that we have in our Acts of Parliament. This Bill removes the supremacy of EU-derived law, much of which was created by the Council of Ministers, as I have pointed out, behind closed doors and without a transcript.

I was pleased to read in the Government response to our latest report, “Retained EU Law: Where next?”, that:

“The Government recognises the incongruous nature of Retained EU Law, particularly the principle of EU supremacy, which has no place in the legal system of an independent, sovereign nation”.

I am glad that that is clearly the basis on which the Prime Minister made his comments this morning, and I was actually encouraged, somewhat ironically—because I do not put too much trust in them, to say the least—by the remarks made about Brexit from the Opposition Front Bench.

The European Scrutiny Committee recommended that

“when retained EU law is modified by domestic legislation, the Government ensures that the amending legislation clearly indicates whether the modified legislation is to keep the status of retained EU law. We consider that the status should not continue.”

I am pleased that the Bill makes provision for that, and I welcome the inclusion of the sunset provisions to provide clarity and an effective timeframe for the repeal of all EU retained law, which is essential.

The director of the CBI on the “Today” programme this morning basically agreed that the Government have, as he put it, levers at their disposal that can support the growth push that we will need. He actually used the words:

“The growth imperative is bigger than before”.

He specifically mentioned, as part of that growth imperative, “different kinds of regulation”, and put growth at the heart of what he was talking about, because he knows it is true, Conservative Members know it is true and Opposition Members know it is true. We need growth and productivity. It is essential that we deploy these levers to achieve that growth, and in unity, to realise our potential and improve our competitiveness and our capacity for investment. I strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Here we go again: another piece of legislation introduced in the name of Brexit, which we were repeatedly told was about restoring Parliament’s sovereignty and supremacy, and yet one that gives Ministers absolute control over whole swathes of legislation that impact upon our national life by cutting Members of Parliament out of the process almost altogether, and the public as well. This is what the Hansard Society had to say:

“The Bill…Sidelines Parliament because it proposes to let all REUL expire on the sunset deadline unless Ministers decide to save it, with no parliamentary input or oversight.”

This is a shocking Bill. As I see it, one of the main purposes of the Bill is presentational: it is trying to remove the words “Europe”, “European” and “EU” from the statute book. It is a form of linguistic and legislative purge, which may make those who argued to leave the EU feel better, but it does not add to the sum total of human happiness. The former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who has just left the Chamber, made it crystal clear what the aim was when he wrote to me on 13 October and said that the Bill will require Departments

“to remove unnecessary or burdensome laws which encumber business and no longer meet the Government’s policy objectives.”

I remind the House that one person’s burdensome law is another person’s safe working conditions; it is their right to take parental leave.

At a time of great uncertainty and economic difficulty, what the Bill does is simply add to the uncertainty. This point was brilliantly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). What businesses want to know is what the rules are and what the framework is, because that knowledge provides them with certainty, on the basis of which they can invest and carry out their work. The Government are doing the absolute opposite with this Bill. They are saying to every one of those businesses and would-be investors, “We just need to point out that the laws, regulations and rules that are in place today may not be in place in the same form after Christmas 2023 if we don’t get round to saving them.” I cannot think of an approach more calculated to undermine confidence in the British economy and to deter would-be investors than the one in this Bill. I point out that we are not doing very well on inward investment—we have the lowest level of inward investment in the whole G7.

Part of the problem is that we have no idea, and I do not think the Government have any idea, which bits of EU law the Government want to scrap, which bits they want to amend and retain and which bits they want to keep in their entirety. We know that there is a list; reference has been made to it. It is not a little list—it is a jolly big list, and it is found on the famous dashboard. I echo the plea made by other Members: I really hope that the Government have counted everything. To paraphrase Lord Denning’s famous phrase, now that the incoming tide of EU law has ebbed away, have Ministers and civil servants searched every estuary, every river, every tributary and every salt marsh to make sure they have found all the bits of legislation that will be subject to this Bill? It is really important that they have done so, because if they have missed anything, that bit of legislation will fall in December next year—it will disappear from the statute book, whether Ministers want it to or not.

The next thing that is objectionable about the Bill is that, for the first time I can recall, it allows Ministers to change the law of this country by doing nothing—by simply watching the clock move and the pages of the calendar fall until December 2023 comes around. Even if Government Members agree with the aim of reviewing these laws—and there is an argument to be had for that—it is extraordinary that Ministers are asking the House to give them this power. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who is no longer in his place, did a good job of moving the Bill’s Second Reading having come to it very recently, but he had no answer to the point I put to him, and I have yet to hear one in the debate, about why Ministers should be allowed to get rid of law simply by sitting on their hands.

[Sir William Cash]

The right hon. Gentleman is rather avoiding the point that the legislation came in with exactly the same arrangements and was imposed upon us by the Council of Ministers, by majority vote behind closed doors, and he knows it.

[Hilary Benn]

Well, what I do know is that I sat on the Council of Ministers for seven years as a Cabinet Minister and took part in discussions and decisions about directives. That is a point the hon. Gentleman never, ever mentions; it is like everybody was locked out of the room. He makes that argument to avoid addressing what is in the Bill. Saying that something in the past was not perfect—I happen to agree with him about the fact that we were not allowed to watch the Council of Ministers at work—is not an argument for what is proposed in the legislation before us today.

What is more, are Ministers seriously arguing that, given all the pressures and the things that the new Prime Minister no doubt wants to do, civil servants should spend time going through 2,417 pieces of legislation? I say good luck to the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whose Department has 570 pieces of legislation—the Department for Transport has 424 and the Treasury has 374—and who will have between now and next Christmas to decide what on earth to do about them. While they are valiantly trying to do that, there is absolutely no provision in the Bill for public consultation and there will be no impact assessment on any changes that they are proposing to make. It takes a particular type of genius to make an enemy of worthy organisations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Green Alliance and others by threatening that which we and they value in pursuit of a headline.

What about workers’ rights? What exactly is the Government’s intention, in detail, when it comes to the working time directive? We have often heard Ministers complain about some of the consequences of the working time directive, but at other times we have heard them say, “Under no circumstances will we weaken workers’ protections.” The Minister acknowledged that we have entered into certain commitments as a country—although that does not mean that the Government will keep to them, if the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is anything to go by—and that certain employment and environmental legislative commitments are engaged by the trade and co-operation agreement.

We all know that, if we act in a way that the EU thinks gives us an unfair competitive advantage, it can retaliate. How will it help economic growth if we are inviting the prospect of that happening? I listened carefully to the commitment that the Minister made from the Dispatch Box on environmental and employment laws, but I am sorry to say that it is still not clear what he means by that. It is the detail that matters, so what will be changed and what will be kept the same?

The Bill does its best to tell the courts what they can and cannot take into account when considering cases before them. The Government tried to do that previously with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and they are back to have another go. One part in particular is extraordinary; clause 7(3) proposes to amend section 6(5) of the 2018 Act by substituting it with:

“In deciding whether to depart from any retained EU case law…the higher court concerned must (among other things) have regard to…the extent to which the retained EU case law restricts the proper development of domestic law.”

What on earth does that mean? Can any hon. Member explain what the proper development of domestic law is? I think that clause 7 is trying to kick the judiciary again into being more enthusiastic about Brexit, but Ministers know that in the end, the courts will take into account the things that they think are relevant.

I will say what I think will happen after this song and dance and all the chest beating about the wonderful new freedom. The Bill has not just one sunset clause, but three: 31 December 2023, 30 June 2026 and forever. Under clause 1(2), Ministers can decide to retain EU law in perpetuity or until such time as they choose to change it. I wager, therefore, that as next December approaches, many Ministers will find lots of reasons to use clause 1(2), because they will not have had time to decide what to do with the legislation.

In conclusion, this is a bad Bill. It threatens lots of laws that people value; it creates uncertainty; it takes powers away from the House; and it allows Ministers to repeal the law by doing nothing. For all those reasons, it should be rejected.

Small Modular Reactors and Energy Security

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered small modular reactors and energy security in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank all Members who have attended this debate on what is a crucial topic for both the UK’s ongoing energy security and our ambitious goal to achieve net zero.

This is far from the first time that I have raised the issue of nuclear energy in a debate. I last raised the topic of the funding of nuclear power on 9 November last year in an Adjournment debate, and have also been active in raising the issue of nuclear through oral and written questions. I have recently established an all-party parliamentary group on small modular reactors.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the incredible work she does in this field, as well as not only her APPG work, but her work in relation to the Nuclear Industry Association. I pay tribute to Tim Stone, Lincoln Hill, and the other people who are doing amazing work, and I congratulate my hon. Friend very much on everything she has been doing.

[Virginia Crosbie]

That is incredibly kind of my hon. Friend, but I would like to highlight that it really is a team effort. I thank him for the support he has given me on my political journey: my nickname is “Atomic Kitten”, which is somewhat thanks to support from so many people.

Small modular reactors are an exciting new nuclear technology for three principal reasons. First, the modular construction helps to cure issues that have been experienced with past nuclear projects, such as financing, long construction timelines and cost. Secondly, they provide a much-needed route to energy security and low-carbon energy; and thirdly, SMRs could drive a new industrial revolution, levelling up across the UK with high-skilled jobs in the nuclear and engineering supply chain. That is something I am really hoping to hear from the Minister about.

Energy-intensive Industries

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing this very important debate.

Manufacturing is the backbone of the British economy, but it is a backbone that has been dangerously damaged in recent decades. By failing to back our manufacturing sector, successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have only succeeded in offshoring jobs. As a result, they are ripping the heart out of our local communities, while also offshoring our carbon emissions. The Government’s No.1 priority should be to do whatever it takes to support and regenerate our manufacturing sector.

Steel is the cornerstone of that manufacturing sector, and it will continue to be so for decades into the future. Steel is the homes that we live in, the vehicles that we drive and the offices that we work in. Steel will build the smart cars and the wind turbines that power our economy forward. The Government appear to believe that steel is a sunset industry, but nothing could be further from the truth. The steel industry is a hotbed of innovation and pioneering technology.

Tata Steel is the largest private sector employer in my constituency, and the company is absolutely determined that there should be a future for UK steelmaking, while also recognising the importance of decarbonisation. It recognises that for UK steelmaking to enjoy a prosperous future, the industry needs support and partnership from the UK Government, first by working with the industry to manage a pathway to net zero on both public and private investment, but also by the Government levelling the playing field in order to ensure that the industry is competitive against its European counterparts.

Let us be clear—the current energy spike has played havoc with energy-intensive industries.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a first-class speech. I was brought up in Sheffield and lived there for 20-odd years. I know what he is talking about and he is completely right. I am not going to make a speech, but I want to congratulate him.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words.

Let us be clear—the energy spike has played havoc. November 2021 prices peaked at 50 times the 2020 average, at £2,000 per megawatt hour. The monthly average wholesale costs are 50% higher than in Germany. These extraordinary electricity prices are leading to smaller or completely eliminated profits, and thus to less reinvestment and even pauses in production for some companies. Higher electricity prices also act as a disincentive for investment from international steel companies, with the UK being seen as a less favourable investment environment than other places.

The potential for a widening price gap between the UK and our European competitors means a loss of market share, both in the UK and in key export markets. That is why it is utterly self-defeating for Ofgem to recommend that network energy prices rise even higher. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has rightly called for the steel industry to be exempt from this price hike; let us hope that Ofgem, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Minister, who is in his place today, will take heed of the Committee’s recommendations.

Other European countries have taken quicker and more expansive action than the British Government by offering support to energy-intensive industries. As has already been mentioned, the Portuguese Government have announced a minimum 30% reduction in network charges for industrial users. The Italian Government have pledged over £4 billion to eliminate renewable levies on gas for industry and electricity for small and medium-sized enterprises. In Spain, we have seen tax cuts and the temporary reduction in extraordinary profits made by energy companies, including extending the existing suspension of a 7% power generation tax through year end. They will also cut their special electricity tax from the current 5.1% to 0.5%.

What we need to see in this country now is the provision of 100% compensation for costs of carbon in electricity bills, through a carbon price floor and a UK emissions trading scheme, up from the current 75% allowed for under EU state aid rules. We need to provide 85% compensation for the capacity market fee and an 85% reduction in network costs, in line with France and Germany, as well as full exemptions for the renewable levies or the introduction of additional compensation.

The Minister will point, of course, to the energy-intensive industries compensation fund, but that was half a decade ago, and the gap I have just described exists after that fund is taken into account. We have had enough of warm words; we must now commit to levelling the playing field for our steel companies. It is the least British workers in industrial communities deserve. What a contrast between the Government’s dithering and Labour’s bold and ambitious £3 billion steel renewal fund. In that fund, we pledge serious investment while the Chancellor had absolutely nothing to say about steel in the Budget. It is a dereliction of duty and makes a mockery of the Government’s so-called levelling-up policies. Tragically, successive Conservative Governments have failed to support our steelworkers and their families and communities. What a contrast with our party and our steel unions, which truly grasp the central importance of the steel industry to the past, present and future of our country. Let us hope that the Government will at some point recognise the need to unleash a modern manufacturing renaissance, with steel at its heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing such an important debate at such an important time. I wholly agree with and endorse much of what has been said so far.

One of the key starting points for energy-intensive industries—the focus of this debate—is having affordable energy, but we must have reliable energy too. One of my concerns is that the energy mix we get in the coming years must be reliable, not just in its provision—there are obvious concerns with wind turbines and solar panels—but in the costs. We ought not to be susceptible or vulnerable to these massive price fluctuations that can jeopardise businesses.

I do have a broad interest in the nuclear sector, as a north-west Member of Parliament. Much of the UK’s nuclear industry is based in the north-west of England, and the Springfields fuels centre, near Preston, is not too far away. Warrington is also a key centre. If we go down the small or advanced modular routes, the leadership scene in Rolls-Royce, in Derby, will also provide very powerful growth within the UK. If we can capture the market early on and have that manufacturing and intellectual property side in the UK, we can then sell further afield.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the nuclear delivery group is doing an extraordinary job? In the last two months, we have moved, very substantially, down a strong, stable route towards getting better nuclear delivery.

[Chris Green]

I agree entirely. It is welcome that the Government have renewed their focus on nuclear organisations, and that groups of colleagues within Parliament are increasingly giving that focus to the nuclear sector. I appreciate that is not universally appreciated, but the narrative and strength of argument is building up for the sector. If we want to have energy-intensive industries, we need that strong foundation of reliable energy. Even if it is a little more expensive than some alternatives, that certainty of production is immensely important, because if a business is going to invest, it has to have that confidence in the first place.

When we discuss levelling up, we have to think about the energy-intensive industries in the north of England and the midlands from ceramics to the steel industry, glass and chemicals. We have to think of levelling up as focusing in a significant sense on manufacturing—and heavy manufacturing—that requires that intensive provision of energy. It would be a positive thing if the Government set out more clearly their support for those sectors. I was concerned with the Cumbrian coal mine, which was going to produce metallurgical coal for the steel industry, but that has been challenged, not because it is going to produce thermal coal, which is a different type of coal used for different reasons. We have to have that clarity and be able to support the industry when it needs it.

We have had a trend over many years of offshoring manufacturing and allowing other countries, perhaps with lower environmental standards than ours, to take our manufacturing industry. If we are looking at COP26 and the agenda that so many countries around the world focused on and championed, we have to recognise that in recent years we have been exporting manufacturing, therefore manufacturing jobs, carbon and other emissions for domestic consumption. We do not have the emissions in the UK, but we are still creating those emissions overseas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) captured the sense very well when she talked about free markets. We all ought to champion and support free markets, but we ought to be cautious when other countries around the world do not champion free markets and do not have the same appreciation of a level playing field that we do.

I welcome the Government’s direction of travel. I wish they would be even more supportive. There will be many more ways, especially listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, to make it more competitive to invest in energy-intensive manufacturing in the United Kingdom.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who is a doughty champion of Stoke. He is Stokie born and bred and boasts regularly that nearly half of Stoke-on-Trent North was built with his family line, so I look forward to seeing Brereton Place soon when I am out campaigning on the trial.

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

I also want to give a shout-out to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) who gave an absolutely outstanding speech; one of the best I have heard since I became a Member of this place. I hope that a lot of those asks are taken up by the Government and acted on.

The city of Stoke-on-Trent is absolutely steeped in its ceramics, not just in its history but in its future. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South talked about Lucideon, one of the leading UK advanced ceramic manufacturers which was recently awarded £18 million with the Ceramics Manufacturing Group, which is looking at how we can have new and exciting ways for this technology to work, alongside the traditional industries. I have companies such as Steelite, Churchill China and Burleigh, which are still making their world-leading products, which we can enjoy in this place if we go into Portcullis House or the Members’ Dining Room. It is a shame that when I go into Government Departments when I am turning or when I visit a Minister, I do not see a Stoke-on-Trent mug. I am absolutely dumbfounded when I visit a Minister and see that they do not have Stoke-on-Trent ceramics in their office.

One of the things the Minister should take away from this is to ensure that we properly procure Stoke-on-Trent’s world-leading ceramics in every single Government Department, because it sends a message that a UK Government are backing UK production.

[Sir William Cash]

I commend my hon. Friend on making an excellent speech, as they all have been today. With sovereignty we can stand on our own feet and insist on a level playing field in energy, which never existed in the EU, and promote our own manufacturing on a proper basis.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As a co-Staffordshire MP, he has absolutely championed our world-leading ceramics manufacturing in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, as well as being a doughty champion for the coal industry. A lot of ex-miners in my community always wish to pay their respects to him for all the work he did for them.

Turning to covid-19 and the energy price rise, if we take Steelite International as an example, 99% of its turnover comes from the hospitality industry. In April 2020, as covid-19 forced us into our homes and away from pubs, restaurants and cafes, Steelite lost 95% of its turnover overnight. Despite that being hugely damaging to Steelite as a hospitality operator, it failed to qualify for the rates relief offered to hospitality businesses as part of the emergency package announced in 2020, and it was classed as a manufacturer.

The ceramics industry is crucial to the hospitality sector and should also benefit from the 50% one-year business rates discount announced recently by the Chancellor. As a company that depends on hospitality, Steelite was one of the businesses hit hardest by the pandemic, and now by gas prices. Gas prices have risen rapidly across Europe in 2021, but the UK has been exposed to considerably higher prices than elsewhere, with prices rising to five times what they were this time last year.

Many ceramic companies forward purchase their gas and electricity. However, during lockdown when demand for the hospitality sector drastically decreased, gas that had been forward purchased was not used. That meant companies had to sell it back at a loss, making many reluctant to forward purchase again due to uncertainty over future lockdowns and levels of demand. As a result, the ceramics industry has been left particularly exposed to the current exceptional gas prices. On average, gas is roughly 10% of the cost of manufacturing a plate. However, companies have been exposed to gas costs five times of what they were last year. Companies should, of course, aim to build in some resilience in their processes, but this kind of market fluctuation is beyond anything they could have reasonably planned for. For large manufacturers, it could add as much as £500,000 to £1 million per month to production costs. It is simply impossible for ceramics companies to continue to swallow these increased costs, especially at a time when orders from the hospitality sector are still not up to the previous levels in 2019.

Costs will need to be passed on to customers. However, while we are still recovering from the hangover effects of the pandemic, customers are looking to cut costs, not increase them. Passing on extra costs to customers risks encouraging them to turn to cheap imports from abroad, where Governments have taken decisive action to support intensive industries. Spain has introduced tax cuts, including extending an existing suspension of a 7% power generation tax until the end of the year and cutting the special electricity tax from 5.1% to 0.5%. At the end of the day, we must take action and protect these industries. I hope the Minister will take away everything that has been said, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for securing the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is right to point out that there two factors here. One is the volatility and how the price has moved and the second is the compactor. The latter point is well made by colleagues from all parties. I know hon. Members will acknowledge that we have provided more than £2 billion of support in under a decade in price-release schemes for energy-intensive industries. I accept that there are significant concerns about the position we are in and where we are seeking to go. I hope that that will be acknowledged and contextualised within that reality.

When formulating where we do or do not go in future, I hope hon. Members will accept that the situation is extremely complicated. We have a very diverse group of energy-intensive industries—more than 70 sectors—as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test highlighted. We have a range of exposures, challenges around efficiencies and hedging strategies. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) pointed out the challenge of hedging strategies in recent months. Other forms of mitigation might be possible.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I have to make progress. If I have a moment at the end, I will happily give way. This is a diverse sector, but we are seeking to see what may be possible. Announcements will be made in due course, should they be possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made a very good point about eligibility criteria. He is aware—it has been referenced already in the debate—that a review is under way at the moment. A consultation ran between June and August. There were more than 30 responses, and we will make further announcements in due course. He is absolutely right to highlight the longer term, as other hon. Members have done. The Prime Minister mentioned that point in his speech on Monday. He highlighted the importance of manufacturing, of energy-intensive industries and of making sure that electricity prices over the long term are in place, so that the viability and competitiveness of those industries are ensured. He highlighted nuclear. I know there are a range of views in the room about nuclear, although happily the majority of us seem to be in favour of making progress. I hope we can do so in the months and years ahead.

I want to give my hon. Friend a couple of minutes at the end of the debate to wind up, but I have a couple of points on the long term. Obviously, we are in a long-term process of decarbonising our electricity grid. That continues and will have a real impact over the long term for energy-intensive industries, and elsewhere. There is a lot of work under way, a lot of schemes, a lot of funding and a lot of Government subsidy that has already been announced, such as the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund, £40 million of which has already been awarded, including to steel companies such as Celsa, to brick manufacturers, to glass and to metal casting. The second stage will close on 6 December.

Energy White Paper

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the UK ETS scheme that is being launched, but I will take it from his comments that he is not a fan of nuclear power. Perhaps I could explain to him that, of course, renewables are playing an increasingly large part in our energy mix, but the wind does not always blow as hard as we would like and the sun does not always shine. We know that nuclear power is reliable, safe and not intermittent; that is why it needs to be a part of the energy mix. He will know that a significant number of power plants will be coming offline and that is why we are proceeding with our discussions on Sizewell C.

The hon. Gentleman talked about tidal wave and tidal power. As I said in my response to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), there will be an opportunity, through the CFD 4 process, to come forward with projects on that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about CCUS. What I can tell him is that at this point we have not made any decisions about the sites of CCUS plants, but we will provide much more detail on this in early 2021. Those who are interested, including folks from his constituency, will then be able to take a look at what we set out.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the EU negotiations on state aid go far beyond the question of mere subsidies and include tax incentives and the like. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that nothing in any treaty text or any subsequent Act of Parliament will prevent the United Kingdom from having its own sovereign state aid rules, including those on energy, so that we are not subjugated to EU state aid rules or to the European Court of Justice, given that the EU intends to impose and enforce its rules against us, which would be by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors without us at the table after 31 December?

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. If I may, I refer him to the written ministerial statement I laid in the House some weeks ago, in which I said that from 1 January 2021 the Government will follow the World Trade Organisation rules for subsidy control and any related commitments the Government have agreed in free trade agreements. We also intend to publish a consultation in the coming months on whether we should go further than our WTO and international commitments. That will include consulting on whether any further legislation should be put in place.

Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely.

The MPS winter newsletter states:

“Whilst the Trustees are and always have been supportive of any initiative that had the underlying aim of improving members outcomes, the Trustees do not have the power to make these changes without recourse to the Guarantor”

—in other words, the Government.

“We will of course continue to work in your interests across all aspects of running the scheme”.

Let me say this, earnestly, to the Minister. The trustees will be listening. They want to renegotiate the current sharing arrangements. If approached by the trustees, will the Government, as guarantor, negotiate those arrangements? If the Minister wishes to intervene now, I will take his intervention; otherwise I hope he will address that question when he sums up the debate.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

May I say to the hon. Gentleman that there are those on this side of the House who not only have a great deal of sympathy with what is being said, but have a great deal of support for it and want to give a great deal of encouragement? Having come from Sheffield and worked with miners on the cricket field as well as the rugger field, I know the position exactly. I have seen all the pits and been down a lot of them. Let me simply say, I hope that you get what you want.

[Grahame Morris]

God bless you. I am grateful for that intervention,

What I am trying to do—with all due respect, and without denigrating anyone’s contribution—is set out the factual position. I think that the arguments that the existing arrangements are unfair are overwhelming.

Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I know he has championed this issue over many years. I have indeed spoken to the trustees, and they are in agreement that we need to look at this again.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I would simply like to say, first, that I hope the hon. Lady gets a review out of this debate, at the very least; and secondly, that I have always supported the mineworkers, since the closing of the pits by Michael Heseltine. It was a long time ago, but the bottom line is that the miners deserve to be looked after properly.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I am pleased that we have cross-party support today. It is very welcome.

The risk undertaken by the Government in guaranteeing the pensions no longer justifies the price paid by the miners for that assurance. The membership of the scheme alone has decreased substantially over the decades since the deal was struck. In 2006, there were 280,000 members; now, there are 160,000. The Government’s financial risk in their role as guarantor of the pensions is in permanent decline, yet in essence they are still charging miners the same price that they charged 25 years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I am afraid that there is a fundamental fallacy in some of the arguments that have been advanced. I suspect that the Labour Government made the decision not to review the surplus sharing for the same reason, which is that the money that comes to the Government is then being spent to support pensioners in many ways, providing them with, for instance, free prescriptions and bus passes. It is not correct to say that the money is just sitting there.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

No, I will not give way. Some important questions have been answered. I think that I was generous in allowing two speeches to be made before my response.

As the hon. Member for Barnsley East rightly said, the scheme continues to function and the numbers are falling. The only scheme that resembles this one is the one that was set up for rail workers. Again, the Government are the guarantor, which means that any liabilities incurred by the scheme will come back to them. For that reason, the trustees, who include ex-miners, have done an amazing investment job. Because of that guarantee—it is basically a Government-backed scheme—the returns are at least a third higher than they would otherwise have been, so it has generated a lot of value.

Nissan in Sunderland

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I say to the hon. Lady, whose constituents depend on successful future investments, as well as the ones that have been secured, which she rightly welcomed when they were first made, that this whole House has a responsibility to come together, put its differences aside and find a deal that can be agreed and ratified, and can be ratified by the European Parliament, so that we can have precisely that certainty that Nissan and other investors have called for.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, rather than being about Brexit, a fundamental reason for the decline in demand for diesel cars—not only in Sunderland, but elsewhere in the UK and throughout the whole of Europe—is the imposition of EU regulations, which will continue in UK law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to reduce emissions and diesel particulates, which are harmful to health? So what on earth are the anti-Brexiteers complaining about?

[Greg Clark]

First, the company sells most of its output into the rest of the European Union so will need to maintain its ability to meet the requirements to which my hon. Friend refers. Secondly, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), Nissan in particular has been among the prime advocates of the drive towards cleaner vehicles. That has often been to this country’s benefit, because the Leaf, which is made in Sunderland, is the best-selling electric vehicle in Europe.

Euratom Membership

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Very simply, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on introducing the debate, because his attitude was extremely constructive. There are a lot of issues associated with matters of this kind, and it is important for us both to be practical and to stick to the legal position. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr. Jones) about the legal position; in fact, it is endorsed exclusively by the European Commission. After the BEIS Committee report, which was published on 2 May, the Commission published a position paper on 22 June stating:

“On the date of withdrawal, the Treaties, including the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community…cease to apply to the United Kingdom.”

I think that is definitive; the Commission takes that view.

However, the other aspect to this is that we have to find an answer to these questions, and we have to be constructive about it at the same time. The legal position is clear, but the question is where we go from there. We are bound by international conventions to our membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it is my belief that the same applies to the EU. I therefore suspect that there is common ground here, in which all the rules are effectively already converging. If that is the case, as I think it probably is, there is a basis on which we can move forwards to some form of co-operation. I very much take up the view of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn regarding a working group. That is an interesting idea, and I think it would be consistent with working towards something like associate membership.

I would like to say much more, but in a nutshell the question of jurisdiction is cropping up the whole time in respect of citizens’ rights, our trade arrangements and so on. There is a consistent pattern in how we resolve these questions as we move into negotiations. As I have said in the House several times, I believe that there is a means whereby, without prejudicing or rejecting our judicial sovereignty and Westminster sovereignty, we can take a common-sense approach, by adopting a tribunal. The tribunal could have on it, for example, a retired European Court judge, a retired Supreme Court judge and an independent judge. In other words, through such a tribunal we could try to find a constructive answer through some form of international agreement whereby we can all be satisfied, instead of shouting at one another. The law is clear, but we need to look for constructive solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One Member asked earlier why we are singling out Euratom from other European institutions that we will leave as part of the process of leaving the European Union. The key point is that our membership of Euratom is under a treaty separate from our membership of the European Union.

[Sir William Cash]

I just want to reaffirm something. The Commission’s position paper, dated 27 June, is quite unequivocal about the fact that when notice is given, we cease to be members of Euratom and also the EU under article 50. That is quite clearly set out in the Commission’s position paper.

[Mr Vaizey]

We remain members of Euratom, as we remain members of the European Union. We served our intention to leave, but there is many a slip between cup and lip. I hate to mention this name in august company, in case it sets off an argument, but it was interesting to see Juncker’s chief of staff today pointing out that he has never made a comment about our membership of Euratom. In terms of his general approach to Brexit and our not having our cake and eating it, he specifically said on Twitter today that that does not include Euratom. There are huge opportunities here, and we all stand ready to help the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I hope the Department will respond by publishing that advice.

[Sir William Cash]

This is not just a question of legal opinion; it is actually stated in the treaty itself. Article 106a of the Euratom treaty, as amended by the Lisbon treaty, unequivocally says that article 50 of the treaty on European Union—the article that sets out the procedure for EU withdrawal—

“shall apply to this Treaty.”

It is there in black and white. It is not a matter of legal opinion—it is just there.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On the issue of cross-party consensus, I have to say that I was interested in his earlier contribution about looking for some sort of associate membership of Euratom, which might well involve the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We are making some progress, aren’t we?

Let me come to those in the Government who have contradicted the comments by the right hon. Member for Clwyd West in February. Comments by James Chapman, the former chief of staff to the Brexit Secretary, contradict that statement, and his comments were confirmed by the former Chancellor. They suggest that the nuclear industry, jobs and cancer treatments are being put at risk by the Prime Minister’s reckless and irresponsible decision to make the future of the ECJ a red line in all matters to do with Brexit.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to approve four draft decisions of the Council of the European Union. All four draft decisions rely on article 352 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which allows the EU to take action to attain the objectives set out in the EU treaties, for which there is no specific power given. That can be done only with the approval of the European Parliament and the unanimous support of all member states. Before the UK can agree those draft decisions at the Council, Parliament must first give its approval. Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 provides that a Minister may vote in favour of an article 352 decision only where the draft decision is approved by an Act of Parliament. I am pleased that Members of both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise and decide whether to approve such measures.

The UK is leaving the EU. Until that process has concluded, the UK remains a full member of the EU, and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. That includes exercising the UK’s vote in the Council of the European Union on these four draft decisions. Whether or not those EU decisions involve the UK directly, they may make a difference to the context of the negotiations. While we are leaving the EU and its institutions, we will continue to maintain a resolute friendship and alliance with all the European countries. We have been working in peaceful partnership with EU member states for decades to build a prosperous and stable Europe.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Margot James]

Yes, I will give way.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I commend my hon. Friend for all his work within the Council of Europe, and confirm that that will continue long after we have successfully concluded our Brexit negotiations.

The Prime Minister set out a bold and ambitious vision for the UK. She outlined our key negotiating objectives as we move to establish a comprehensive new partnership with the EU.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Margot James]

I will make a little progress and then give way.

That vision for a partnership in the best interests of the United Kingdom means that we will also continue to work with the EU on tackling areas of common interest.

[Sir William Cash]

I am much encouraged not only by the fact that the Minister is giving way but by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) said. It may be that we are no longer brothers and sisters in Europe, but we are cousins. Therefore to that extent we will continue to seek to maintain good relations with the EU, despite the fact that we are absolutely going to leave.

[Margot James]

I heartily agree with my hon. Friend that we will continue to foster good relations with our EU friends long after we leave the European Union. Keeping that in mind, we are content that all four decisions that the Bill addresses are reasonable, proportionate and in keeping with our best interests, and will not result in any additional financial burdens on the UK.

As I have said, article 352 decisions must be agreed by all EU member states unanimously. When all member states are in a position to vote on the decision, the European Council will schedule a meeting of the Council of the European Union. If all member states vote to approve the draft decisions at that meeting, the European Parliament will be asked in turn to approve the draft decisions. If it does so, the decisions are adopted into EU law. All member states apart from the UK have agreed the EU-Canada decisions, and all member states except the UK and Germany have agreed the Fundamental Rights Agency decisions. We do not believe that any of the draft decisions should be considered contentious in any way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As has been mentioned, the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I was Chairman for six years, has actually cleared these decisions. We did have some reservations about one aspect, however: we wanted to know how all this would work out during the Brexit negotiations and after we have left the European Union.

Basically, there is a necessity for this Bill because, as the Minister pointed out, although we are leaving the EU, under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 we are still within the framework of the requirements to comply with EU rights and obligations until Brexit takes effect. There are some who hope that all this will somehow be kicked into the long grass, that we will have arrangements that take us into a world of never-never land, and that it will all disappear. There are some in the House of Lords who certainly take that view and there may even be some in the House of Commons. I was extremely glad to note, however, that on certain matters, in particular the single market and the customs union, the decision that was taken on the Queen’s Speech made it clear—subsequent events seem to have confirmed it—that the Opposition have actually begun to become extremely realistic about the single market and all that goes with it. These sort of arrangements are implicit in the Brexit negotiations and in the outcome of Brexit.

The Bill has to provide parliamentary approval of the decisions on Albania and Serbia, and the European Scrutiny Committee had no reservation or concern after we heard from the relevant Minister—the same Minister who wrote me the letter last year. The important issue here is that Albania and Serbia are not by definition countries that are likely to become candidates for EU membership during the period of our negotiation process and exit. Mr Juncker himself said that he does not think there will be any enlargement until after we have left the EU, so such decisions will not impinge upon us. We do not have to take a specific position on the candidatures of Albania and Serbia.

The Bill’s briefing paper contains many references to the Fundamental Rights Agency, and one thing that has not yet been mentioned in this debate is the charter of fundamental rights, which is embedded in the Lisbon treaty arrangements and is a matter of law. I strongly resisted our being drawn into the charter, and we held a European Scrutiny Committee inquiry into how Lord Goldsmith and his negotiations had failed so dramatically. We thought that we were not going to be a member of the charter, but we ended up within that framework. The Fundamental Rights Agency, which promotes dialogue with civil society in order to raise public awareness of fundamental rights, things which would be part and parcel of the functions that would be carried through by virtue of the Bill in respect of Serbia and Albania, contains something of a vacuum because we will not be part of the charter of fundamental rights after we have left the EU, but we are part of it for the time being, so to that extent there is a problem. I will not invite the Minister to enlarge on that—I hope she is glad about that—but I want to put it on the record that the charter of fundamental rights should never have applied to us in the first place. It was a botched job by the then Labour Government, and we are now saddled with the fact that we are in it. Fortunately, however, we will be coming out of it as a result of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I declare an interest as someone who served on that Committee in the previous Parliament. Has my hon. Friend received any assurances about when the Committee will be reconstituted? Does he agree that that is a matter of urgency?

[Sir William Cash]

I am glad to respond, because I have been very much engaged on that subject. In fact, one of the last things I did on the day of Dissolution was to write to the Chief Whip asking him to ensure that our Committee was reconstituted immediately after the election, because in 2015 the whole process went on until November, by which time we had a monument of documents. In the meantime, many things are being decided in the European institutions, many of which are directly relevant to the Brexit negotiations. It is therefore incredibly important that this House has an opportunity to assess the sorts of things that are being decided, subject to the Committee clearing the documents.

As hon. Members may know, if the European Scrutiny Committee imposes scrutiny reserve on a document because we think it is so important that it has to be debated, the Council of Ministers cannot conclude its consideration of those matters, and the Government cannot make a decision to carry the matter through, unless and until that debate has taken place. When we have a pile of documents—I understand there are some 200 documents in the pipeline—and a pile of explanatory memoranda explaining the Government’s position on them, the position the Government adopt on the documents in the negotiations will be highly interesting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole rightly raises the question of getting on with the job, and I am given to understand, without committing anybody to anything, that the Government are taking steps to accelerate the process because it is so important. Of course, we will discuss the other Select Committees later this afternoon. Their schedules and the allocation of chairmanships to each party will be decided, and I understand that that has been discussed through the usual channels, so I do not expect it to be terribly controversial, but for all the reasons I have set out, it is important for the European Scrutiny Committee to get going.

I entirely endorse what the Minister said about the Canada agreement, which again was discussed by the European Scrutiny Committee. We agreed that we would let it go ahead, but the explanatory notes on the Bill indicate some implications for United Kingdom companies operating in the EU after Brexit, which is the bit we should be most concerned about at the moment:

“Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, UK companies operating in the EU will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Commission in antitrust investigations and, where the thresholds are met, in merger investigations in the same way as for other non-EU companies operating in the EU. Information relating to UK companies based in the EU would therefore still be transferable under the new Agreement.”

That is becoming a bit of a hot potato. I made a representation to the Prime Minister the other day on the question of citizens’ rights, and we hear a lot about the question of City regulation, and here it is coming up again.

Some people are making too much of it. An enormous amount is emerging from the commentariat and on programmes we sometimes find ourselves listening to but that we perhaps ought to switch off. They are trying to make out that, somehow or other, the real problem is that we have to stay in the European Court of Justice, which is complete rubbish. We do not have to stay in the European Court of Justice and, far more than that, we are not going to stay in the European Court of Justice, because we will be repealing sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. The Labour party has made it clear that we will not stay in the single market or the customs union, which raises some of the biggest issues relating to the ECJ. Frankly, as I told the House the other day, we have to come up with a sensible arrangement that does not prejudice the regaining of our judicial sovereignty. At the same time, we must agree some form of tribunal that enables us, through a parallel bilateral “source of law” agreement, to have a decision-making process that does not and cannot keep us in the European Court of Justice. That is not a matter of opinion or of wishful thinking; staying in the ECJ is fantasy land.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

At the moment, under our current competition agreement with the EU, a British company can seek direct redress if it believes a European company is anti-competitive. Under the agreement between the EU, the UK and Canada, although we will have competition co-operation if we pass the Bill, there will be no direct redress for a British company that is concerned about the anti-competitive activities of a Canadian company. Therefore, although I completely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about the European Court of Justice, we want enforcement that means British companies can seek direct redress from our largest trading partner, when needed. Does he think that the European economic area or the European Free Trade Association court models might be of interest?

[Sir William Cash]

I am not at all convinced by the EEA route. I do not want to get into all that now, except to say that the EEA involves the EU.

[Vicky Ford]

The EFTA court?

[Sir William Cash]

EFTA is a different story, and I specifically raised it with the Prime Minister only a few days ago because I have been having fruitful discussions with the president of the EFTA court and his advisers. He has been over here to talk to the Foreign Office, to me as the then Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and to others.

It is an interesting proposition. I am not saying that we will do exactly the same in resolving those jurisdictional questions as happens at the moment with EFTA, but the great advantage of the EFTA model is that it is completely independent of the EU yet follows the decisions of the European Court of Justice for the most part, although not always—that is important. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) noticed that, because not many people have. It is important that we have a constructive discussion about the best way of being cousins rather than brothers and sisters, as I said in my earlier intervention. We all have a mutual interest in ensuring that we have a proper jurisdictional answer to these questions.

I will not attempt to design a model here and now, but it might be something along the lines of a retired European Court of Justice judge—I do not want to be held to this, but it is a thought—together with a retired member of our Supreme Court and an independent judge, so that we get the benefit of listening to arguments that bridge the two jurisdictions. We will retain our sovereignty, judicial and legislative, but we are interested, for the sake of the companies to which my hon. Friend referred, in ensuring that we give them the answers they need. Her general point raises an important practical question, and we need to ensure that we end up with something that works, without prejudicing our legislative and judicial sovereignty, while providing an answer to the people in our constituencies and throughout the United Kingdom whom we serve as Members of Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, many congratulations to you on the fact that I am seeing you here yet again. As you may have noticed, I am still here as well. So for practical purposes, let me draw my speech to a conclusion by saying that I do not in any way want to interfere with the process before us, because it is not going to affect this country in the longer term, and it is important that we act sensibly and responsibly to make sure that we do not rock the boat in the meantime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I join the long queue of those paying tribute to you on your re-election and on the outstanding role you play in this House?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said right at the start, the Opposition support the European Union (Approvals) Bill. More generally, the UK is leaving the European Union, and, in that process, the Opposition will fight to put jobs and the economy first. We will also not accept the watering-down of rights and standards, and I say to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that we are right to be concerned about that. To give one example from my past, I took the case of the Eastbourne dustmen all the way to the European Court of Justice 15 years ago. For 10 years, rights on the transfer of undertakings were denied to workers being privatised in Britain. Had it not been for those European mechanisms, we would never have seen those rights enforced in this country. We will be leaving the European Union, but I stress again that we will not accept anything that waters down rights and standards.

[Sir William Cash]

I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that, under the proposed repeal Bill, there would be a transposition of European law into UK law under Westminster jurisdiction. That would include the very rights to which he refers, and I think that is understood on the Opposition Front Bench, is it not?

[Jack Dromey]

The rights under TUPE and the acquired rights directive are now guaranteed in British law. What is crucial—this is not a debate for today—is what happens after leaving the European Union in terms of the continuation of guaranteed certainty for workers and their rights, as well as the enforcement mechanisms that exist in the event of a dispute.

The Opposition strongly believe in the importance of a collaborative relationship with the European Union. We will no longer be members, but it is essential that we are partners. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) referred to the notion of cousins, but, given the way some in the Government are conducting these debates, I sometimes think we are more akin to an estranged couple in a difficult divorce. However, at the next stage, partnership will be essential, and that is one of the principles enshrined in the Bill—a more general partnership that benefits Britain, particularly on key issues such as cross-border security or, as in this case, cross-border trade.

As we leave the European Union, it is essential that we put in place new and sensible arrangements. The Opposition support the Bill because it is right and also—I agree with the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on this, although I think I have just promoted the hon. Lady—because it would, to use my words, although they amount to the same as hers, be wrong to nit-pick on a measure of this kind. This measure makes good sense, so it should be supported.

On the substantive issues—the participation of Albania and Serbia in the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency—we have heard powerful contributions, including from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), as to the origins of the FRA and why it is so important. That is not least because it was born out of trauma and war in continental Europe and because of the role it has played over many years in advising on fundamental rights, discrimination, access to justice, racism, xenophobia, and victims’ and children’s rights. It is absolutely right that we should have such an agency promoting those principles, rights and values throughout Europe, and that is all the more important now.

It is deeply welcome that we will have Serbia and Albania locked into that process at the next stages. In the not-too-distant past, Serbia was wracked by war, and Albania was under a totalitarian regime for many years. Both are now candidates for European Union membership, and that will be for the European Union to decide. Both will contribute to and participate in the FRA. The proposal has been cleared by the European Scrutiny Committee and the Lords European Union Committee, so we strongly support it.

Let me move on briefly to the EU-Canada competition agreement. The hon. Member for Chelmsford was right that if we have global free trade, it is important that we also have effective mechanisms to combat anti-competitive behaviour. That has to be in the best interests of consumers and companies. Crucially, however, it needs to be effectively enforced. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) was right when he referred to the historic relationship we have with Canada. Looking to the future, we need, in his words, to have the economic good sense to develop that relationship.

As far as the substantive proposal is concerned, we already have arrangements in place. It is being proposed to extend the powers to allow both sides to exchange evidence and information in the course of investigations. To make the obvious point, the absence of such a power can be an impediment to effective enforcement. We therefore believe that what is proposed is right, and similar arrangements are in place, as the Minister said, with countries outwith the European Union, such as Switzerland. On that substantive issue as well, we support what is contained in the Bill.

I have two questions over and above those posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. First, what will be the transitional arrangements? Crucially, as we stand now, UK companies operating in the European Union are still subject to the same anti-trust and merger rules. In future, the European Union will share information about UK companies with Canada but will not share the information it receives from Canada about the UK with the UK. That poses a very big question about what happens post Brexit in terms of transitional arrangements and how this then works in future.

Secondly, will the Minister clarify what will be the ongoing relationship with the Fundamental Rights Agency? For all the reasons that I have spelled out, it is critical that we are part of a pan-European mechanism that is about human rights and combating racism and xenophobia—never more important in the current climate than it has been in the past.